familypediawikiaorg-20200214-history
Talk:Richard Hutchinson (1602-1682)
Parents I did some searching around, and some sites say his parents are Thomas and Alice, others say they are William and Anne (Marbury) Hutchinson. Which is correct? -AMK152(Talk • 20:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC) :Just found a place where it proves that the William and Anne are wrong. -AMK152(Talk • 14:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC) ::Great! Can you add a link to your source? Chadlupkes 17:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC) :::Here: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/hutchinson/2000-10/0970680563 -AMK152(Talk • 17:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Well heck, why not just quote the passage since its from a work well out of copyright. I'm not sure this actually proves what it says it does, but perhaps. Bill 00:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC) :"The writer has been able, after a long and laborious investigation, to solve the chief doubts existing in respect to the early history and connections of the family of Governor Hutchinson, several of members of which played important parts in the affairs of New England. As has heretofore been his almost invariable experience, he has had more difficulty in clearing away the mists that have enveloped that history, growing out of doubtful traditions and careless or wilful misrepresentations, than in developing the true facts in the case when once the right clew was obtained. "Before proceeding with the history of the immediate family of the earliest emigrant ancestor of Governor Hutchinson, it will be well to state that there is not the slightest authority for connecting him with the heraldic family of Yorkshire, either with the branch settled at Wykeham Abbey in that county, or that in Nottinghamshire from which descended the famous Colonel John Hutchinson Richard Hutchinson of Salem, Mass.. The theory that Edward Hutchinson, of Alford in Lincolnshire, father of William the emigrant, was identical with Edward Hutchinson of Wykeham Abbey, his contemporary, is entirely baseless; and it is quite certain that, if there was ever the most distant connection between the two families, it only existed many generations previous to their time. Edward Hutchinson of Wykeham Abbey, to whom the arms of the family were confirmed (not granted) in 1581, died early in the year 1591: his Will being dated on the 20th of February, and proved at York, on the 22d of April in that year; while Edward Hutchinson of Alford survived him more than forty years. The writer has successfully traced the subsequent history of the Wykeham branch, and is able to state positively that none of its members ever had anything to do with New England, or any connection with the New England emigrants." (pp. 3-4) * * * "It will be seen, therefore, that Anne Hutchinson, by both parents, descended from gentle and heraldic families of England. The same cannot, it is to be feared, be said of her husband. While the Heralds were engaged in the Visitation of Lincolnshire, in the 1634, Thomas Hutchinson, grandson of William Hutchinson, of Lincoln (brother of John, the ancestor of the emigrant), then living at Thedlethorpe in Lincolnshire, having made a good match with the Fairfaxes, presented his pedigree, and claimed the arms of Hutchinson of Yorkshire, but failed to establish his right to their use. The pedigree was retained among the Herald's notes, but on the original (preserved at the College of Arms) are endorsed the following ominous and significant words: 'Respited for Proof.' The requisite proof was evidently never furnished, nor have the arms ever since been granted or confirmed to any member of the family in this line. As this Thomas Hutchinson was himself born before the death of Edward Hutchinson of Wykeham Abbey, to whom the arms had been of right confirmed in 1581, there could have been no difficulty in establishing a connection with his branch, if any such existed, and the fact that it could not then be accomplished, and has not since been done, is fatal to the claims of the descendants of the two Mayors of Lincoln, including Governor Hutchinson himself, who clearly used the arms, not of right, but solely because they were the only arms of Hutchinson. "On the other hand, the writer may add, in conclusion, that he has successfully traced the descent of Richard Hutchinson, of Salem, another of the early New England emigrants, through the branch in Nottinghamshire, directly to the heraldic family of Yorkshire." _London, England, July, 1866_ (pp. 23-4) Taken from: _Notes Upon the Ancestry of William Hutchinson and Anne Marbury, from Researches Recently Made in England_, by Joseph Lemuel Chester, Member of the New England Historic-Genealogical Society, Boston, D. Clapp & Son, 1866. (LDS Fiche #6018566) fide posting in Rootsweb Hutchinson archives :I did a rootsweb search, putting Richard Hutchinson as the person, and william and anne as parents, came of with 251 results; one result gives Richard (1602-1682) married to Alice Bosworth, while 247 give 1615????. Richard, son of William and Anne married Mary Waters. Seeing that the Richard that i am descended from, his daughter was born in 1629, would make him 27 if he is not son of William and Anne, or 14 if he is. The Richard, son of William and Anne, his will was proved 1670. -AMK152(Talk • 02:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC) ::I have a casual interest in Ann Hutchinson, mostly from an historical perspective. I have no oar in the water as to her particular ancestry or descendancy. Ann comes up in connection with several events that have some bearing on my own ancstry. But since I'm not searching Ann's genealogy, I'm not likely to spend the time needed to prove her lines of descent based on primary sources. I am likely, however, to add information to her biography. ::That said, do you believe that the most common answer that you get in an Ancestry search is necessarily the "right answer"? The fact that many people accept something as being correct, does not necessarily make it correct. I can point to a number of instances where this is emphatically not the case. My personal approach is to look at the details of a lineage, and decide whether the underlying primary evidence supports a position or not. But that's a personal approach, and one that most genealogists do not follow. The passage quoted is obviously by someone who has spent a great deal of time with the problem. Odds are that they have it correct. Perhaps what he has to say provides sufficient basis (if you look at it in detail) to justify accepting his opinion. But my impression is that he's basically telling you what the answer is, without demonstrating how he reached that conclusion. I might be wrong there, as I've not taken the time to dissect his presentation. However, what this looks like is a matter of simply accepting someone's word for something. That does not consititute "proof". If your curious about what I would consider "proof", look at http://genealogy.wikia.com/wiki/Genealogical_Methods/Standards_of_Proof. Those elements may or may not be present in Chester 1866, but I suspect it falls short. Bill 03:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)